PDA

View Full Version : Hagel Calling Out the Generals



RobotChicken
04-04-2013, 02:21 AM
:fish2 They don't have to LQQK further then a 'Minesweeper on a REEF'!...:closed_2

grimreaper
04-04-2013, 02:42 AM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hagel-hints-at-military-pay-cuts-dings-reagan-dod/article/2526184?custom_click=rss


Hagel blamed the prospective cuts on sequestration. “[F]iscal realities demand another hard look at personnel – how many people we have both military and civilian, how many we need, what these people do, and how we compensate them for their work, service, and loyalty with pay, benefits and health care,” Hagel said at the National Defense University today.

Interesting remarks from the SecDef.

While I disagree with actually cutting military pay, I understand that something does need to be done to tweak the retirement. Hopefully they give this a lot of thought and understand all the potential benefits as well as the potential consequences of doing so.

He also needs to understand that any further cuts to the end strength needs to come with the expectation of doing less with less. It's great that if your local Commanders agree with that line of thinking, but if leadership all the way to the top of the chain have not accepted that as the new reality, then we will continue to be expected to perform the same missions at the same effectiveness with less and less people and less and less money.

I do think it's a great thing that he is looking harder at the GO billets. End strength has continued to drop, but somehow, GO billets are not following suit.


He also hinted at cutting jobs for military brass. “The last major defense re-organization, Goldwater-Nichols, was drafted at the height of the Reagan defense buildup and focused on improving jointness and establishing clear operational chains of command,” Hagel said. “Cost and efficiency were not major considerations . . . Today the operational forces of the military – measured in battalions, ships, and aircraft wings – have shrunk dramatically since the Cold War era. Yet the three and four star command and support structures sitting atop these smaller fighting forces have stayed intact, with minor exceptions, and in some cases they are actually increasing in size and rank.”

giggawatt
04-04-2013, 05:15 AM
Strong RC presence in this thread.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
04-04-2013, 10:39 AM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hagel-hints-at-military-pay-cuts-dings-reagan-dod/article/2526184?custom_click=rss



Interesting remarks from the SecDef.

While I disagree with actually cutting military pay, I understand that something does need to be done to tweak the retirement. Hopefully they give this a lot of thought and understand all the potential benefits as well as the potential consequences of doing so.

He also needs to understand that any further cuts to the end strength needs to come with the expectation of doing less with less. It's great that if your local Commanders agree with that line of thinking, but if leadership all the way to the top of the chain have not accepted that as the new reality, then we will continue to be expected to perform the same missions at the same effectiveness with less and less people and less and less money.

I do think it's a great thing that he is looking harder at the GO billets. End strength has continued to drop, but somehow, GO billets are not following suit.


I really don't have a huge problem with the SECDEF's comments, but I fear the quality and level of the analysis that may go into future changes, as well as the interpretation of his comments, and where priorities may be set.

In other words, I think this is an opportunity to clean up some messes, but I fear we're just going to make a bigger mess.

Thunderhorse19
04-04-2013, 01:02 PM
Why do we need 1,000 flag officers for 3 million sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen? In WWII, we had 2,000 flag officers leading 16 million troops. Hagel needs to cut at least 500 flag officer slots/billets. Also, Hagel needs to take a look at his grade creeping SES's (civilian generals). He needs to cut those slots/billets by 50% also. All of the military services have too many SES's, generals and admirals.

garhkal
04-04-2013, 03:55 PM
Why do we need 1,000 flag officers for 3 million sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen? In WWII, we had 2,000 flag officers leading 16 million troops. Hagel needs to cut at least 500 flag officer slots/billets. Also, Hagel needs to take a look at his grade creeping SES's (civilian generals). He needs to cut those slots/billets by 50% also. All of the military services have too many SES's, generals and admirals.

Agreed. The lower ranks are doing more with less, so why not force the "brass" to do the same.

Rainmaker
04-04-2013, 05:46 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hagel-hints-at-military-pay-cuts-dings-reagan-dod/article/2526184?custom_click=rss



Interesting remarks from the SecDef.

While I disagree with actually cutting military pay, I understand that something does need to be done to tweak the retirement. Hopefully they give this a lot of thought and understand all the potential benefits as well as the potential consequences of doing so.

He also needs to understand that any further cuts to the end strength needs to come with the expectation of doing less with less. It's great that if your local Commanders agree with that line of thinking, but if leadership all the way to the top of the chain have not accepted that as the new reality, then we will continue to be expected to perform the same missions at the same effectiveness with less and less people and less and less money.

I do think it's a great thing that he is looking harder at the GO billets. End strength has continued to drop, but somehow, GO billets are not following suit.

According to which anonymous, corporate donor funded, "objective" think tank? Why aren't any of these so called "non profit" think tanks saying anything about the $3 Billion dollars a year that the government reimburses just the 3 largest defense contractors alone (Lockheed, Northrop or Raytheon) for their defined benefit pension plans?? It's being taken for granted that the military retirement is unsustainable. The fact of the matter is that it's not. If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. If anything it's going to shrink as more retirees die off and they continue to screw over the population with this bogus CPI. Pensions have already been raided in the private sector, to maximize profits for big business and put all the risks onto the workers. It's been a disaster for the mainstream. why should the military follow suit? matching 401K won't be any cheaper for the taxpayer. but, it will make a lot of money for certain corporate interests on wall street and their lapdogs in Congress. Take it to the bank when Rainmaker tells you that is what all this bloviating about "retirement reform" is really all about.

Nickymaz
04-04-2013, 11:09 PM
Hagel really rubs me the wrong way. He's supposed to go to bat for us and it seems like he's offering up our pay and benefits on a silver platter for cuts. It's fucking insulting.

efmbman
04-04-2013, 11:25 PM
Why do we need 1,000 flag officers for 3 million sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen?

Your numbers are off a bit. As of FEB 2013 (the most recent report), we have 924 flag/general officers for a total force of 1,138,154 troops. Makes the ratio 1 flag/general for every 1,232 troops. Throw in a total of 86,789 field grade officers... more than a little top-heavy.

Banned
04-05-2013, 12:12 AM
If minimum wage had increased since 1990 at the same rate as CEO pay... minimum wage would be $23 an hour.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that the lower rungs of the military get wrung dry while the generals continue to take in their paychecks unaffected. Bleh.

RobotChicken
04-05-2013, 12:16 AM
:hat Say it ain't so..Joe! How about an 'GS-11'! :lol

Robert F. Dorr
04-05-2013, 12:28 AM
Why do we need 1,000 flag officers for 3 million sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen? In WWII, we had 2,000 flag officers leading 16 million troops. Hagel needs to cut at least 500 flag officer slots/billets. Also, Hagel needs to take a look at his grade creeping SES's (civilian generals). He needs to cut those slots/billets by 50% also. All of the military services have too many SES's, generals and admirals.

Simple solution. Take everybody above the rank of O-6 and reduce every one of them by one rank. All of them.

RobotChicken
04-05-2013, 01:12 AM
Simple solution. Take everybody above the rank of O-6 and reduce every one of them by one rank. All of them.

:hat That'll work for 2 years then they will be promoted up again. Just eliminate their positions period!

Robert F. Dorr
04-05-2013, 02:06 AM
:hat That'll work for 2 years then they will be promoted up again. Just eliminate their positions period!

Nope. No more promotions. Just one four-star position: chief of staff. Eliminate the vice. Combatant commanders and majcom commanders become three stars. Eliminate the National Guard chair on the Joint Chiefs. Eliminate the deputy chairman.

VFFTSGT
04-05-2013, 04:46 AM
Nope. No more promotions. Just one four-star position: chief of staff. Eliminate the vice. Combatant commanders and majcom commanders become three stars. Eliminate the National Guard chair on the Joint Chiefs. Eliminate the deputy chairman.

And the Vice Commander of the Deputy Commander of the Deputy Chairman to the Deputy Undersecretary of Personnel...I think it's a 4 star billet.

garhkal
04-05-2013, 05:13 AM
According to which anonymous corporate donor funded "objective" think tank? Why aren't any of these so called "non profit" think tanks .

How's about we cut out all these damn think tanks.


And the Vice Commander of the Deputy Commander of the Deputy Chairman to the Deputy Undersecretary of Personnel...I think it's a 4 star billet.

Tell me you are making a funny and that is not a real billet.

Robert F. Dorr
04-05-2013, 08:54 AM
Hagel really rubs me the wrong way. He's supposed to go to bat for us and it seems like he's offering up our pay and benefits on a silver platter for cuts. It's fucking insulting.

An understandable reaction. So how would you deal with the fact that the government is borrowing 40 cents from your grandchildren (whether they've been born yet or not) for every dollar it spends?

And is it the Secretary's job to go to bat for you? Not your fault for simply expressing a commonly held view, but who says? Your reaction is understandable but it reflects a presumption of entitlement. Ironically, no one talks about sacrifice any more than American military members. Shouldn't we all sacrifice a little to bring down this spending?

Oh yeah, and "people costs" in the Department of Defense are totally, completely out of control. How would you solve that?

FLAPS
04-05-2013, 11:17 AM
Oh yeah, and "people costs" in the Department of Defense are totally, completely out of control. How would you solve that?

And the "people costs" of entitlements are totally out of control. If entitlements take up approx 65% of gov revenue (forecasted at 100% in 10 years), and DoD takes up 20%, then should we not focus on the 800 lb Gorilla (entitlements) just as much or more than cutting DoD retiree benefits? Why are Defense Cuts (which need to happen) such fair game, yet entitlements are seemingly untouchable?

"F" it....once the US Dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency (thank you DEBT), then game over anyway for the American dollar and way of life.

SomeRandomGuy
04-05-2013, 12:17 PM
And the Vice Commander of the Deputy Commander of the Deputy Chairman to the Deputy Undersecretary of Personnel...I think it's a 4 star billet.

Just for fun I googled, "Acting under secretary of defense for" (without quotes). It actually retrieved over 17,000 hits. This brings up several questions, the most important one is why list acting in your position title? I was not aware that being an undersecretary is a congressionally appointed position. The only reason anyone should ever have acting in front of their title is if they are waiting on congressional approval. The rest of them need to quit acting important and just drop the acting from their title.

SomeRandomGuy
04-05-2013, 12:18 PM
And getting rid of the F22. Limiting non-essential TDYs. Not buying office equipment every other year.

So far the best part about sequestration has been limiting supply purchases to mission essential only. The same goes for TDY travel. It kind of makes me wonder why we ever paid for anything that was not mission essential.

imnohero
04-05-2013, 12:25 PM
Oh yeah, and "people costs" in the Department of Defense are totally, completely out of control. How would you solve that?

You have numbers to back up that statement?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DoD could solves it's budget "problems" completely by cutting the F35 and litterol combat ship programs. Both programs have failed.

Why should the "DoD budget sacrifice" be borne only by people? Furlows, higher medical cost, lower retirement, etc? Why not cut some hardware?

JD2780
04-05-2013, 12:28 PM
You have numbers to back up that statement?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DoD could solves it's budget "problems" completely by cutting the F35 and litterol combat ship programs. Both programs have failed.

Why should the "DoD budget sacrifice" be borne only by people? Furlows, higher medical cost, lower retirement, etc? Why not cut some hardware?

And getting rid of the F22. Limiting non-essential TDYs. Not buying office equipment every other year.

Rainmaker
04-05-2013, 04:04 PM
An understandable reaction. So how would you deal with the fact that the government is borrowing 40 cents from your grandchildren (whether they've been born yet or not) for every dollar it spends?

And is it the Secretary's job to go to bat for you? Not your fault for simply expressing a commonly held view, but who says? Your reaction is understandable but it reflects a presumption of entitlement. Ironically, no one talks about sacrifice any more than American military members. Shouldn't we all sacrifice a little to bring down this spending?

Oh yeah, and "people costs" in the Department of Defense are totally, completely out of control. How would you solve that?

well First we need to get rid of this army of Staff Augmentation Contractors on the books (doing what used to be inherently governmental tasks) If DoD just cut it’s service contracts back to the pre-GWOT levels it would get them to the Sequester number without any cuts to any other programs or end strength. The whole idea was that service contractors were supposed to be temporary, yet they have become so imbedded that now the sequester cuts are falling on the very personnel in the DoD that these service contractors are supposed to be augmenting.

garhkal
04-05-2013, 07:05 PM
And the "people costs" of entitlements are totally out of control. If entitlements take up approx 65% of gov revenue (forecasted at 100% in 10 years), and DoD takes up 20%, then should we not focus on the 800 lb Gorilla (entitlements) just as much or more than cutting DoD retiree benefits? Why are Defense Cuts (which need to happen) such fair game, yet entitlements are seemingly untouchable?

"F" it....once the US Dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency (thank you DEBT), then game over anyway for the American dollar and way of life.

Exactly.. how is it, defense which is one of the few things the constitution DOES demand the govt provide considered 'less important' than welfare/disability/medicare/ss spending, which does NOT get covered by the constitution as something our govt should provide?


So far the best part about sequestration has been limiting supply purchases to mission essential only. The same goes for TDY travel. It kind of makes me wonder why we ever paid for anything that was not mission essential.

So some bureaucrat can justify having their position...

JD2780
04-05-2013, 07:07 PM
So far the best part about sequestration has been limiting supply purchases to mission essential only. The same goes for TDY travel. It kind of makes me wonder why we ever paid for anything that was not mission essential.

Yea we've been pissing money away for years.

Pullinteeth
04-05-2013, 08:14 PM
So far the best part about sequestration has been limiting supply purchases to mission essential only. The same goes for TDY travel. It kind of makes me wonder why we ever paid for anything that was not mission essential.

The problem is what is defined as mission essential now isn't realistic. I agree that cutting out boondoggles=good. Current limitations=horrible.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
04-05-2013, 10:24 PM
The problem is what is defined as mission essential now isn't realistic. I agree that cutting out boondoggles=good. Current limitations=horrible.


It probably depends on a number of factors. To me, it sounds like there is still plenty of b.s. still going on, but so many stand behind their b.s. it's difficult to differentiate between what is essential and what isn't.

PickYourBattles
04-08-2013, 07:33 AM
It's being taken for granted that the military retirement is unsustainable. The fact of the matter is that it's not. If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. If anything it's going to shrink as more retirees die off and they continue to screw over the population with this bogus CPI. Pensions have already been raided in the private sector, to maximize profits for big business and put all the risks onto the workers. It's been a disaster for the mainstream. why should the military follow suit? matching 401K won't be any cheaper for the taxpayer. but, it will make a lot of money for certain corporate interests on wall street and their lapdogs in Congress. Take it to the bank when Rainmaker tells you that is what all this bloviating about "retirement reform" is really all about.

They're getting ready to steal some money. If you were government, and you could steal from any sector of our society, which would you choose? I would choose the segment that has been best conditioned in BOHICA, that won't question, where half admit on a public board they would violate the law themselves if they were placed in the 1940s, because at the end of the day when they get robbed and are told "it's for the common good" they will salute smartly.

For those who say they would never mess with the military because they are the fighters...allow me to chuckle. Our military generations won't fight without access to an aircraft, or a tank, or a bradley. Hell, the government is even making great strides at infringing the Second Amendment and taking effective defensive arms (aka "assault weapons").

Get ready to be robbed like those in Cyprus. Oh, and thanks for your service.

WillsPowers
04-10-2013, 02:05 AM
Hagel is going to end up alienating the entire rank structure from top to bottom. His proposed changes to the Military Justice System is just his wussified bowing and kowtowing to the feminazi demands of Diane, Nancy, Hillary and Barbara---none who know anything about the military. Hagel looks like he's retarded or something.

WillsPowers
04-10-2013, 02:11 AM
At least McDonald's workers serve a useful purpose--I can't say the same about Hagel, Obama or Kerry.

Tak
04-10-2013, 02:25 AM
I personally do not use the word "retarded", out of respect for McDonald's workers.

WillsPowers
04-10-2013, 02:35 AM
At least McDonald's workers serve a useful purpose--I can't say the same about Hagel, Obama or Kerry.

tiredretiredE7
04-10-2013, 03:14 AM
At least McDonald's workers serve a useful purpose--I can't say the same about Hagel, Obama or Kerry.

So what is your purpose in life?

sandsjames
04-10-2013, 03:12 PM
They're getting ready to steal some money. If you were government, and you could steal from any sector of our society, which would you choose? I would choose the segment that has been best conditioned in BOHICA, that won't question, where half admit on a public board they would violate the law themselves if they were placed in the 1940s, because at the end of the day when they get robbed and are told "it's for the common good" they will salute smartly.

For those who say they would never mess with the military because they are the fighters...allow me to chuckle. Our military generations won't fight without access to an aircraft, or a tank, or a bradley. Hell, the government is even making great strides at infringing the Second Amendment and taking effective defensive arms (aka "assault weapons").

Get ready to be robbed like those in Cyprus. Oh, and thanks for your service.

Thanks for keeping me in mind in your post. By the way, browsed your blog. Awesome to see you talk about living cheap while driving a car that costs more than some houses. Brilliant. Way to stay relatable.

sandsjames
04-10-2013, 03:14 PM
So what is your purpose in life?

I think it's to suck up the time of the courts and law enforcement while wasting tax payer dollars.

Rainmaker
04-10-2013, 08:46 PM
They're getting ready to steal some money. If you were government, and you could steal from any sector of our society, which would you choose? I would choose the segment that has been best conditioned in BOHICA, that won't question, where half admit on a public board they would violate the law themselves if they were placed in the 1940s, because at the end of the day when they get robbed and are told "it's for the common good" they will salute smartly.

For those who say they would never mess with the military because they are the fighters...allow me to chuckle. Our military generations won't fight without access to an aircraft, or a tank, or a bradley. Hell, the government is even making great strides at infringing the Second Amendment and taking effective defensive arms (aka "assault weapons").
Get ready to be robbed like those in Cyprus. Oh, and thanks for your service.

if they pushed through a ban on psycotropic drugs it would eliminate most vets from legally posessing a firearm. Hell, just think how many vets have been prescribed Ambien alone. That's why Rainmaker never have any problems because, whenever he do. He just drink em away.